Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentAerial SurveillanceSearch and SeizureCurtilageFourth Amendmentsearchcurtilage
Facts
Riley lived in a mobile home on five rural acres, with a greenhouse 10 to 20 feet behind the home and within a fenced, posted area. The greenhouse's contents were shielded from ground-level view by trees, shrubs, the mobile home, and parts of the greenhouse itself, but about 10% of the roof was missing and two sides were not enclosed. Acting on an anonymous tip, a sheriff's officer flew a helicopter at 400 feet over the property, looked with the naked eye through the roof openings and open sides, and identified what he believed was marijuana. A warrant based on those observations led to the discovery of marijuana in the greenhouse.
Issue
Whether police surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse within the curtilage of a home from a helicopter hovering at 400 feet constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.
Rule
Police may observe what is visible to the naked eye from a public vantage point where they have a right to be. Aerial observation of curtilage is not a Fourth Amendment search when the area is exposed to view from the air, the aircraft is operating lawfully, and the defendant lacks a reasonable expectation that the area is immune from such observation.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In rural Topeka, Kansas, deputies received a tip that Lena Ortiz was storing contraband in a shed 15 feet behind her house, inside a fenced yard marked with no-trespassing signs. The shed's windows were covered, but several roof panels were missing, and an officer in a helicopter flying lawfully at 400 feet looked down with the naked eye and saw stacks of illegal fireworks through the openings without creating unusual noise, dust, or interference.
Did the officer's observation most likely constitute a Fourth Amendment search?
Explanation. Under the majority rule, police may observe what is visible to the naked eye from a public vantage point where they have a right to be. Even though the structure was within the home's curtilage and shielded from ground-level view, the missing roof panels exposed its contents to aerial view. Because the helicopter was operating lawfully at 400 feet and the record shows no undue noise, wind, dust, threat of injury, interference with normal use, or observation of intimate details, the observation was not a Fourth Amendment search.